ANGELES CITY—The trial of a case, which a prosecutor downgraded to unjust vexation from the original sexual harassment and filed by a 32-year-old Australian woman lawyer against a 69-year-old doctor, began in a courtroom here on Thursday.
This was the second time that the complainant, Louella Villadiego, faced Dr. Franklin Villaluz since the supposed incident took place almost four months ago.
They were among the 40 or so people in the packed room of the Municipal Trial Court Branch 1 here. Villadiego, an Australian with Filipino parents, was seen crying in the arms of her relatives. Staff members of the Ima Foundation, where she works as a legal adviser, also joined her.
Villaluz was accompanied by his lawyer Ricardo Sagmit.
In her complaint affidavit, Villadiego said she went to Villaluz’s clinic on May 20 to have her ear examined.
“However, I was shocked when he placed his hand on my head and said to me, ‘Can I kiss you?’ After which he tried to place his mouth on my cheek. At this juncture, I was horrified and immediately pulled myself away from him and said to him, ‘I work at a women’s center. That’s not allowed.’”
Carol Luna, a program coordinator of the foundation who was with her at that time, sought the police’s help.
In his counter-affidavit, Villaluz said that, “Immediately after seeing her, I was reminded of my daughter who resembled her and in the course of my interview regarding her ear ache, kept a respectable and reasonable distance.”
“But after examining her, I became emotional and nostalgic and was reminded of my daughter whom I miss and since she looked like her, I, on a fatherly note, told her from a distance, ‘You look like my daughter, may I kiss you?’ I said those words from a distance without any malice,” the doctor said.
In the same counter-affidavit, he complained that Villadiego had him detained for a day at the Angeles City jail in Sto. Domingo.
On May 21, a special counsel from the Department of Justice prosecutor’s office, issued a resolution saying that the “offense cannot qualify to sexual harassment.”
Special Counsel Jaime Mateo Umlas said the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 “punishes all forms of sexual harassment in the employment, education or training environment.”
“Further, the complaint cannot also be considered for the offense of the acts of lasciviousness as there is no showing that the act was done under the circumstances as defined in Art. 335 (rape as amended),” Umlas said.
“However, the allegations in the complaint is sufficient to indict the respondent for unjust vexation. Respondent performed an act which caused annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or disturbance on the part of the complainant,” he said.
The resolution by Umlas was approved by Second Assistant City Prosecutor Oliver Garcia.
In the Revised Penal Code, unjust vexation is punished by a fine ranging from P5 to P200.
Villaluz said in his counter-affidavit that his imprisonment of one day was “more than the penalty provided by law.”
